trying to submit a challenge cache but no joy.

[+Team Luvbassn]

I am trying to place a challenge cache in California and was told by my reviewer that I have to prove that I did the cache or that someone else has done it. The cache will take cachers all over California to certain types of caches. In addition he/she says that I have to put the coords for the final in the cache listing. This is a challenge cache just like the Delorme Challengers and they have the cachers e-mail them the answers so that they can verify the correctness of the finds. Am I missing something?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes. There was a change of policy a fair ways back. E-mail for the coords is no longer permitted. The older ones are grandfathered.

And, one of the requirements is to demonstrate that it is doable. Better read up on the guidelines.

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

You did click that? Didn't you?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

And just for those reading along ....

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#mystery

 

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

[+Team Luvbassn]

I did did read the requirements and I thought I had answered them. I ran a PQ for California virtuals and then did a county micro and then a sort and all the counties that are in the challenge are up and running and have recently been found. I think this is proof of a doable challenge, but the reviewer does not agree. short of going to Groundspeak any other suggestions. I have made up my mind to put the final coords in the listing but proof of doablity is a tough one.

[+Chokecherry]

Theoretically someone could run PQ's for the entire country and find a virtual in every county and call it doable because they've been found recently... but is it really doable?

 

You or someone you know actually doing it proves it doable beyond the theoretical doable...

[GOF and Bacall]

Yup. Go out there and do it. If you have fulfilled the requirements you are asking others to fulfill you proved the concept.

 

Edit to correct fat fingered spelling error.

Edited September 7, 2010 by GOF & Bacall

[+Team Luvbassn]

guess I'll just give up. the challenge would be too hard for me.

[Skippermark]

In addition he/she says that I have to put the coords for the final in the cache listing. This is a challenge cache just like the Delorme Challengers and they have the cachers e-mail them the answers so that they can verify the correctness of the finds. Am I missing something?

The DeLorme caches were given special permission. I believe they are the only caches that were given this permission.

 

For challenge caches now, the idea is that a finder should be able to meet the requirements and find the final cache without any intervention from the cache owner.

 

For instance, if you're on vacation and see a challenge cache you want to do and go out and meet the requirements. You email the owner for the final coords but they don't get back to you for two weeks, but by then you're already home.

[+entogeek]

guess I'll just give up. the challenge would be too hard for me.

 

There's a difference between "too hard" and "unreasonable".

 

A few weeks ago, I submitted a Challenge Cache for publication. Our local reviewer requested that I demonstrate that I could meet the challenge myself. So over the next few weeks I found the three remaining caches I needed, cleaned up the requirements as per his suggestion and resubmitted with a Reviewer Note stating I had met the challenge. Cache was published shortly thereafter. While it's hard to do, it can be reasonably accomplished. FWIW, the first incarnation of my cache was much, much harder than the final version. So perhaps take a look at your own challenge and see if it can be tweaked. Not all challenge caches have to be hard - some can be just plain fun to complete.

 

BTW, the cache in question is "Icon x" Challenge Cache

 

My suggestion is to work with your reviewer as they typically come with lots of good advice.

Edited September 8, 2010 by entogeek

[+DeepButi]

And just for those reading along ....

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#mystery

 

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself,

Easy ... either you have or you have not.

 

... or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

Impossible to demonstrate.

How much is "a substantial number" ? 10? 100? 1000? 1%,10% of ... of what? local geocachers? worldwide?

How to prove that someone "would be able to do so"?

 

I created the first Fizzy Challenge in Spain. I couldn't find any Spanish geocacher with all 81 D/T. In fact there is one specific combination with only ONE geocache in Spain, and nearest ones more than 500 miles away in other European countries.

But obviously (?) it's doable ... as there are some hundred geocachers all over the world that signed other Fizzy ones ...

 

Conclusion: best to work with your local reviewer!

 

Edited for spelling

Edited September 8, 2010 by DeepButi

[+briansnat]

... or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

Impossible to demonstrate.

How much is "a substantial number" ? 10? 100? 1000? 1%,10% of ... of what? local geocachers? worldwide?

How to prove that someone "would be able to do so"?

 

What they are trying to weed out are challenges that few people would even have the possibility of fulfilling. Say someone submits a challenge where finders must have logged finds on 5 Project A.P.E. caches, or one where they have to find every type of cache icon including locationless. Challenges such as those would drastically limit the pool of people who can log the challenge cache.

 

Now consider a challenge where finders need to log 20 waymarks before they can log the cache. There are thousands of people who have found at least 20 waymarks, so it's obviously something that a substantial number of geocachers can do.

 

Some other challenges might not be so clear cut. In those cases then the CO should go out and do it, which will prove to the reviewer that it can be done.

 

The term "substantial" is a subjective one, as are many terms in the guidelines. That provides flexibility.

For me, I'd say substantial for the purposes of a challenge cache would mean over half of all geocachers

could conceivably complete the challenge. Other reviewers may have a different definition of substantial, but I'm sure none of those definitions include "few".

[+DeepButi]

briansnat,

I agree with most of your post and I'm happy that guidelines provide some flexibility.

 

But you cannot be serious about "For me, I'd say substantial for the purposes of a challenge cache would mean over half of all geocachers".

 

I would bet no more than 10% of all geocachers would be able to find caches 5/5, so no Fizzy challenges would be allowed ...

 

"Reasonable" is a hard to define word ... and I would not like at all to be in a reviewer's place to have to decide about it!!

 

[+Team Luvbassn]

Thanks to all who commented. Here is the cache I wanted to place:

 

find 1 virtual in 10 different counties in California that when you use the first letter of each county it would spell out "California".

 

I still think the reasonable part is questionable. But the reviewer has said I have to e-mail goundspeak and I am unwilling to do this.

 

Thanks again for your help.

[+wimseyguy]

Thanks for spelling it out. It's easier to get good answers in the forums when you are more direct.

 

I love virtuals, and have recently become very involved with completing challenge caches. It's been the primary motivation of several recent cache outings. That said-I agree with your reviewer, and quite possibly for a different reason then they gave you.

 

I don't think it should be harder to complete challenge caches as they age. Since no new virtuals can be listed, it's quite possible that some of the qualifying ones will be archived over time, making it harder for someone to complete this challenge in two years than it would be next month. I think the playing field should be level for all who wish to complete a challenge and log that cache.

 

I'd also use that same argument for challenge CO's who think they are leveling the playing field by excluding previous finds. That has the opposite effect, but is a discussion for another thread.